Literature DB >> 18227829

Primer: strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis.

Axel Finckh1, Martin R Tramèr.   

Abstract

Properly conducted meta-analyses that are based on systematic reviews of the literature allow the conclusive synthesis of accumulating scientific evidence. Systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, offer a more objective appraisal of the available evidence compared with traditional narrative reviews. Combining data from independent studies using meta-analytic methods can improve statistical precision, but cannot prevent bias as such. The validity of meta-analyses depends on the methodological quality of the included studies, the eligibility criteria used for the meta-analysis, and the various reporting biases. In this Review we examine the analytical strengths of, and the main problems encountered by, both systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on how to best assess the validity of each for the practicing clinician.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18227829     DOI: 10.1038/ncprheum0732

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol        ISSN: 1745-8382


  10 in total

1.  Osteoarthritis: Small studies overestimate the benefit of therapies for OA.

Authors:  Axel Finckh; Martin R Tramèr
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 20.543

2.  The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Systemic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic imaging technologies.

Authors:  Yì Xiáng J Wáng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2016-10

4.  Vortioxetine: a meta-analysis of 12 short-term, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials for the treatment of major depressive disorder.

Authors:  Chi-Un Pae; Sheng-Min Wang; Changsu Han; Soo-Jung Lee; Ashwin A Patkar; Praksh S Masand; Alessandro Serretti
Journal:  J Psychiatry Neurosci       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 6.186

5.  Systemic hypertension as a risk factor for open-angle glaucoma: a meta-analysis of population-based studies.

Authors:  Hyoung Won Bae; Naeun Lee; Hye Sun Lee; Samin Hong; Gong Je Seong; Chan Yun Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Meta-epidemiology.

Authors:  Jong-Myon Bae
Journal:  Epidemiol Health       Date:  2014-09-25

7.  Is the Best Evidence Good Enough: Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Meta-Analyses on Depression.

Authors:  Yingbo Zhu; Lin Fan; Han Zhang; Meijuan Wang; Xinchun Mei; Jiaojiao Hou; Zhongyong Shi; Yu Shuai; Yuan Shen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Divergent Structural Responses to Pharmacological Interventions in Orbitofronto-Striato-Thalamic and Premotor Circuits in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

Authors:  Qiming Lv; Zhen Wang; Chencheng Zhang; Qing Fan; Qing Zhao; Kristina Zeljic; Bomin Sun; Zeping Xiao; Zheng Wang
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 8.143

9.  Systematic review of the effect of training interventions on the skills of health professionals in promoting health behaviour, with meta-analysis of subsequent effects on patient health behaviours.

Authors:  Thomas G Hatfield; Thomas M Withers; Colin J Greaves
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Long-COVID in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Sandra Lopez-Leon; Talia Wegman-Ostrosky; Norma Cipatli Ayuzo Del Valle; Carol Perelman; Rosalinda Sepulveda; Paulina A Rebolledo; Angelica Cuapio; Sonia Villapol
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 4.996

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.